From jails to healing lodges: evaluating the impact of correctional environments on offender adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to compare three types of correctional facilities within the province of Saskatchewan (i.e., Provincial Jails, Community Training Residences, and the Aboriginal Spiritual Healing Lodge) in terms of their specific impact on offender's perceptions and level of adaptation. Specifically, offenders residing in the three types of facilities were asked to participate in a structured interview that addressed six basic factors related to positive adaptation: environment, sense of community, cultural awareness, educational/vocational training, spirituality, and psychological impact. It was hypothesized that offenders housed in the Healing Lodge, where the focus is on traditional Aboriginal cultural and spiritual teachings, should report the most positive experiences. In addition, it was hypothesized that both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders would perceive the Provincial Jail to be the least positive with regard to aiding in successful adaptation. As hypothesized, results indicate that the Healing Lodge and the Community Training Residences are perceived as being significantly more positive than Provincial Jail on a number of dimensions related to positive environmental adaptation. The implications of these findings are discussed with regard to their relationship to the development of more effective correctional environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".